Oh my god. You’re doing this on purpose!
Gah! I can’t accept that you are this daft.
I find it bizarre that you would be prepared to consider a double player-lyse at this stage, for the reasons I gave in #570, and which you now seem to agree with.
I think Sach makes a good point here. Placing two player votes would allow scum to simultaneously push mislynches (by voting town) and gain cred (by voting for a scum not in immediate danger of being lynched). We need to be aware of this possibility if people do place two votes on players.
On Ben, I think there is a case to answer. It’s plausable that a scum Ben would buddy up to Story and try to get a reaction out of Meeko, I’m more concerned about his lack of response. On the thing Cookies flagged up, I read it differently, but I’ll wait for Ben to respond.
On peeker, I can’t rule out the possibility that his initial vote was a scum gambit that went wrong. I’ve seen him play pretty recklessly when he had a town power role to protect, so he might do the same as scum. He is not playing in a pro-town manner, he is ignoring everything except his own wagon and hasn’t explained why he claimed so early. The “plankton, plankton, vanilla” thing might have been a role-fishing attempt.
Unvote DiggitCamara
Unvote StoryTeller
Vote peekercpa
Vote Spawn
That’s kind of a dick thing to say, frankly.
Of course I was considering it. I find it bizarre that someone wouldn’t even consider it. I think we should keep our options open and continue to look at things. To suggest a rote stlye of play mandated on looking at the game in the abstract is not pro-Town. What I’m doing is pro-Town.
Though, after looking at it, I realize it’s not a wise move for today. But that doesn’t mean it’s not worth considering.
I think Sach makes a good point here. Placing two player votes would allow scum to simultaneously push mislynches (by voting town) and gain cred (by voting for a scum not in immediate danger of being lynched). We need to be aware of this possibility if people do place two votes on players.
On Ben, I think there is a case to answer. It’s plausable that a scum Ben would buddy up to Story and try to get a reaction out of Meeko, I’m more concerned about his lack of response. On the thing Cookies flagged up, I read it differently, but I’ll wait for Ben to respond.
On peeker, I can’t rule out the possibility that his initial vote was a scum gambit that went wrong. I’ve seen him play pretty recklessly when he had a town power role to protect, so he might do the same as scum. He is not playing in a pro-town manner, he is ignoring everything except his own wagon and hasn’t explained why he claimed so early. The “plankton, plankton, vanilla” thing might have been a role-fishing attempt.
Unvote DiggitCamara
Unvote StoryTeller
Vote peekercpa
Vote Spawn
[/quote]
ooops!
I realy messed up my post there. Obviously the last half is a remander of Alka’s post, though his vote is the same as mine, so it wouldn’t have any impact even if Chronos decided to take it.
Hey, you know what. I have an idea:
4 February 2010
Dear Sachertorte and Alka Seltzer:
Holy shit, you guys were right all along. Double-lysing would be a terrible idea. You have convinced me. All of your arguments are perfectly sound and mine were baseless. I can’t believe I ever suggested this; I blame my new allergy medication.
Very sincerely,
Frank (which is my real-life name, so you know I’m being serious now)
Can we talk about something else now?
This seems to imply they can be targetted just like any player.
Chronos, can spawn be targetted by night actions?
How is this not an inane statement?
How can you so casually ignore the real and probable event that we will mislynch?
Are you saying that your plan assures us that we will not mislynch?
Gah!
It’s like those sports commentaries that say “In order to win <Team X> will need to score more points.” Sure it’s true… but entirely stupid.
Please see post 626.
On another note:
I am going to
vote Freudian Slit and
vote Spawn
The former because she came out looking not-so-great in my vote analysis of yesterday, and the latter because I currently lack the motivation to develop a second vote. I’m going to walk away from this game for the afternoon; I am way too old to be letting my blood pressure rise over this.
OK, time is ticking away at this point and I’m not feeling brilliantly happy with my vote. When I made the case, I thought it was a reasonable Day One effort. When Scuba appeared to avoid engaging with it, I was happy to keep up the pressure. But at this point his continued absence is beginning to look enforced rather than voluntary, because if he were lurking he’d realise he needed to say *something *at this point. So in many ways that case hasn’t evolved in any way for quite a while, and I was hoping for something firmer (one way or another) by this stage.
However. I don’t feel like the evidence against peeker is indicative of Scumminess. Messy, distracting, unjustified play, yes, but I can’t make myself believe there was ever a Scum motivation for such recklessness.
Story, sach, special ed, and Alka seltzer are going back and forth on strategy. To me, this smacks of engaged and committed Pondies desperate to guide each other to the light of truth. So while it’s a discussion that might be criticised for going round in circles at this point, I think the participants are involved from pro-Pond motives. (On a side note, it would be really helpful to clear up whether or not Story agrees with Alka-Seltzer and sachertorte. This ongoing ambiguity is torture.)
That brings us to relatively quiet posters, which is trickier. fluiddruid and Freudian and USCDiver are voting peeker because they think his play style is disruptive, even if he isn’t Scum. Frankly, that’s a poor reason for voting. But is it Scummy? Not by itself. I can quite see that Scum would be happy to jump on peeker once he exposed himself. Doing so with an explicitly meta-game justification seems more something Pond would do - Scum could find less controversial reasons and still get a vote in. This is open to WIFOM - voting peeker because he’s “anti-town” necessarily implies one is pro-town and thus could be a subtle means of positioning oneself. Of the three, my gut instinct is that fluid and FS have long-running discomfort with peeker’s playstyle. USCDiver’s comments don’t come over as being based on quite so much past history. It’s also a relatively late vote for peeker (the 7th if I count right) so there’s certainly some cover there.
Onward and downward. Cookies’ and Meeko’s votes for Scuba came with reasoning (one case wordier than another), which at least somewhat agreed with mine but also added some detail. Natlaw agreed with me about snuggling but not the rest of my case. KellyCriterion’s vote, by contrast, was appalling - voting for pressure has its place, especially in the early game, but voting for someone who already has votes purely to generate information is weak. It’s this sort of vote that makes me very nervous about lysing Scuba, because it’s not based on suspicion so much as the game state. (**On preview **- I agree that Scuba’s rise up the vote list has at least as much to do with people seeking an alternative to **peeker **as it does with the merits of the case against him.)
I don’t have time even to quickly review anybody else, I’m afraid. I am increasingly reluctant to lynch Scuba before he comes back. I don’t know if Diver will be back but I assume he will look in before the end of the Summer so I’m going to make my suspicions official with:
unvote Scuba Ben
vote USCDiver
NB This is not intentionally themed.
Storyteller: What are your thoughts on Peeker?
If, like me, you sometimes get our aquanauts mixed up, just remember that Scuba Ben splashes around in the shallows while USCDiver tends to submerge for long periods.
story, could you expand upon your vote of Freudian or provide a link to your previous post, for those of us who don’t feel like digging through 16 pages of thread to re-read the justification for your vote?
Right now I see you as butting heads with almost everyone over an issue that you are clearly in the minority on, and now making a vote late in the Day with a somewhat lazy route of justification. This isn’t the story I know, and while a lot of people might think “story is too good to do this if he’s Scum,” I think you’re precisely good enough.
Vote total:
Spawn 21
peekercpa 8
Scuba_Ben 5
Freudian Slit 3
Zeriel 1
fluiddruid 1
special ed 1
USCDiver 1
1: special ed – peeker (353), Spawn (353)
2: ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies – Spawn (193), Scuba_Ben (549)
3: Drain Bead – Spawn (191), fluiddruid (316)
4: Oredigger77 – Spawn (194), Scuba_Ben (482)
5: storyteller0910 – Freudian Slit (629), Spawn (629)
6: Meeko – Spawn (182), [del]fluiddruid[/del] (334-386), [del]peeker[/del] (386-507), Scuba_Ben (507)
7: Mahaloth – Spawn (209), peeker (209)
8: Freudian Slit – Spawn (183-314, 441), peeker (282), [del]sachertorte[/del] (314-441)
9: USCDiver – Spawn (246), peeker (509)
10: Alka Seltzer – Spawn (249-470, 622), [del]DiggitCamara[/del] (419-622), [del]storyteller[/del] (470-622), peeker (622)
11: peekercpa – Spawn (186), [del]story[/del] (186-229), [del]Zeriel[/del] (229-601)
12: Natlaw – Scuba_Ben (460)
13: Zeriel – Spawn (204-277, 345), peeker (204), [del]sachertorte[/del] (277-345)
14: DiggitCamara – Spawn (285), Freudian (326)
15: amrussell – Spawn (247), [del]Scuba_Ben[/del] (428-630), USCDiver (630)
16: KellyCriterion – Spawn (374), Scuba_Ben (529)
17: Scuba_Ben – Spawn (225)
18: sachertorte – Spawn (202), Freudian (489)
19: fluiddruid – Spawn (296), peeker (296)
20: TexCat – Spawn (198), peeker (488)
21: Rysto – special ed (595), spawn (595)
Less than three hours before the onset of Winter.
Anyone who has a night action knows whether they can target Spawn.
I thought Scuba_Ben was saltwater, while USCDiver was chlorinated water.
And by “this afternoon,” I obviously meant “for the next hour,” because how could I stay away?
Sure. Page 10, post #487. Happy reading.
So? Seriously, so what? This is a non-sequitor. Yes, most people disagree with me, and therefore I am butting heads with most people on this subject. Recognized. And?
You know what? Having someone I respect directly call me stupid to my face has put me off my game somewhat. If you want to read that as a Scum tell, be my guest.
I wasn’t really “following” Zeriel on either of those votes. I mean, I agreed with points he made, sure, but I’ve pulled back on the sacher vote, and my peeker vote at this point has little to do with Zeriel. If anything it has more to do with special ed’s justifications (which I posted about), as well as my own feelings about his incredibly disruptive play which dates back to last game. Either he’s a townie who plays badly or he’s scum who has shown himself to be so very early on in the game.
I don’t think storyteller is stupid. Quite the opposite actually.
It is because I don’t think storyteller is stupid that I don’t believe he really means what he is saying. I think it is all for effect. Longer post coming up.
That’s the point I was trying to make as well, sach.
Eventually (once you learn my alignment) you will learn that you are, in fact, calling me stupid every time you post stuff like this.
One upside, though: I really don’t think sach would be acting this way if he were Scum and knew me to be Town. It would be a profoundly asshole thing to do. I consider sach extremely likely to be Town (or, at minimum, non-Scum).